This looks bad. Any ideas?

1999-04-21 Thread Doug McClure
I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas? -doug Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.937943 starting delivery 280: msg 5283860 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.938322 status: local 2/10 remote 19/20 Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 9247

Re: This looks bad. Any ideas?

1999-04-21 Thread seiheng
Something wrong with the DNS I think... Doug McClure wrote: > I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas? > > -doug > > Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.937943 starting delivery 280: > msg 5283860 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.9383

Re: This looks bad. Any ideas?

1999-04-21 Thread Sam
Doug McClure writes: > I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas? The standard unpatched Qmail cannot handle DNS reply packets longer than 512 bytes. Some domains, including AOL, now return pretty sizable DNS packets in reply to MX queries. Immediate short term solution: run dig, and

Re: This looks bad. Any ideas?

1999-04-21 Thread Russell Nelson
Doug McClure writes: > I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas? Yup. AOL is using DNS replies > 512 bytes. Dan Bernstein said in July '97, "Dozens of programs enforce the same limit. A site cannot, as a practical matter, go beyond 512 bytes." Apparently, AOL has decided to put on t

Re: This looks bad. Any ideas?

1999-04-22 Thread Petri Kaukasoina
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 03:42:50AM -, Russell Nelson wrote: > Yup. AOL is using DNS replies > 512 bytes. Replies from relays.orbs.org are also larger than 512. But I guess it doesn't matter because the TXT record fits in the answer and just the NS records are truncated. So there's no need to

Re: This looks bad. Any ideas?

1999-04-22 Thread Doug Lumpkin
I'm new to linuxand picked up qmail a few months ago and haven't had to touch it... But now I need the patch below. I have tried the 1.03 patch with a cleanly tarred qmail tree and all of the hunks fail... Does anyone have any recommendations??? Thanks, -- Doug Lumpkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Russel

Re: This looks bad. Any ideas?

1999-04-22 Thread Chris Johnson
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 02:38:14PM -0700, Doug Lumpkin wrote: > I'm new to linuxand picked up qmail a few months ago and haven't had to touch > it... But now I need the patch below. I have tried the 1.03 patch with a > cleanly tarred qmail tree and all of the hunks fail... > > Does anyone have a